On 1/25/12 4:39 PM, Worley, Dale R (Dale) wrote:
From: Adrian Farrel [adrian(_at_)olddog(_dot_)co(_dot_)uk]
In my opinion, this second last call should be suspended until this
significant breach of the IETF's IPR policy set out in BCP79 has been
resolved.
[...]
I believe the document should be returned to the working group who are
the main victims of the disruptive behaviour by the author.
If the facts are as outlined by Adam Roach, this is the only thing to do.
I apologize for not making this clear in the Last Call text:
Before posting this Last Call (and the similar one for
draft-ietf-sieve-convert), the documents *were* returned to the SIEVE WG
to review the situation. With minimal complaint from the WG and no
indication that the WG wished to change their decision on the documents,
the chairs asked that I simply put it to the entire community as a Last
Call. So I believe anything other than "go ahead with publication as is"
will be done only if that is the consensus of the IETF community as a
whole. The SIEVE chairs and I will be monitoring the discussion.
pr
--
Pete Resnick<http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
Qualcomm Incorporated - Direct phone: (858)651-4478, Fax: (858)651-1102
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf